good evening, alex. >> it's just amazing that we are re-evaluating what that case was about in hindsight, really, the big contours as you laid out so articulately in your earlier intro, and what we are barreling towards. >> although i will say, i forgot -- i mean, i knew that it was televised. the fact that he was televised was so crucial to that dominance over culture. >> i remember where i was. i remember distinctly that i was sitting in lucas lesher's living room as that bronco was running -- we were watching it all on national television. >> thank you, my friend. frien. television. earlier today a source with direct knowledge of the situation gave nbc news the biggest peek yet into what we should expect from trump's new york hush money trial next week, a potential witness list. let me back up. four days before election night

in 2016 "the wall street journal"01 published this explosiveed story. national enquirer shielded trump from playboy model's affair allegation. it was what is known in the cal bloid world as a catch and kill scheme. trump had an affair with karen mcdougal. when trump ran for president, mcdougalor tried to sell that story to the press. sohe the national enquirer boug the story from mcdougal, and then they killed it. this is no longer just the stuff of allegation. in 2018 the national enquirer's parent company entered into a non pros cushion agreement with prosecutors in new york. the tabloid admitted the whole scheme in exchange for immunity from prosecution. around the time that was happening, "the wall street journal" had another scoop. david a pecker, the ceo of the national ckenquirer, also had a immunity deal with prosecutors. he was also spilling the beans. so knowing all of that background, when nbc got this

potential witness list today for trump's hush money trial, these names jumped out at me. karen mcdougal, and david pecker. they are on the ligs as well as the man the editor-in-chief at the national enquirer at the time thaf otcatch and kill scheme, dylan howard. it's not the hush money the national enquirer paid karen mcdougalen to kill her story. the hushll money at the center monday's trial is the money paid to adult film star stephanie clifford, when you probably knou better by the stage name stormy daniels. but the contour of these cases are very, very similar. daniels like mcdougal was ready to goga public with her story a was paid to stay silent. what's moreo both of these payments, the money for karen mcdougal and stormy daniels, those payments were made in the lead-upen to the 2016 election, and that could be key here. because one of the things -- one

of the central things that district attorney alvin bragg will have toal prove in his cai why donald trump did what me did, why did he arrange those payments to stormy daniels? having karen mcdougal and dylan and explaining why the national enquirer was catching and killing stories that could be bad for donald trump in the lead-up to the presidential election, that could illustrate trump's the intent in a similar case, the stormy daniels case. to that end also on the potential witness list is keith davidson. davidson was the attorney for both karen mcdougal as she negotiated her payment from the national enquirer, and he was the attorney for stormy daniels. and i am sure mr. david has plenty to say what he believes motivateed the silngsing of his two clients stories.

now, if you recall the reason d.a. bragg has to move the why here is because the way he structured the charges against trump is not just one singular crime. bragg has charged trump with a mitts demeanor, the falsifying of business records. but bragg has elevated that charge to a felony by alleging that trump falsified those business records in service of committing another large crime. now, d.a. bragg has not yet revealed what that second larger crime is, but it is likely something like tax fraud or a state or federal election crime because stormy daniels story wasn't just killed on some random odate. it wasn't killed while donald trump was a businessman or while he was hosting "the apprentice." it was killed days after the "access hollywood" tape was made public.

tape where donald trump said he liked to grab women by h the you know what. the uh-uh fair, paying to make that story go away just before the election certainly feels a lot like the campaign expense or at least an in-kind donation. so that is why trump's knowledge and the intent are so important here and why having witnesses like karen mcdougal and david pecker and dylan howard and keith davidson could be so essential. these are not the onlye names this potential witness list. there are also central figures and names you mind recognize like michael cohen and stormy daniels herself. now, at this point i'm sure most of america have seen the checks donald trump signed paying michael cohen. michael cohen and stormy daniels bothor have been very public abt how cohen paid stormy daniels for her silence. none of that is in dispute.

but what trump has disputed since the story first became public in 2018 was whether trump knew about it, whether trump knew at the time that his payments to michael cohen were, in fact, a reimbursement to michael cohen for fronting the hushhe money to stormy daniels. >> did you know about the $130,000 payment to stormy daniels? then why did michael cohen make this if -- >> you'll have to ask michael cohen. michael's my attorney. and you'll have to ask michael. >> what trump knew about that reimbursement system and when he knew it will also be central to the case, a which is what makes these less recognizable names also veryec interesting. jeffrey mcconney and madeleine. mcconney was the former controlleras for the trump

administration. he would have had t access and maybe needed to approve the payments to michael cohen, which were all classified as payments for legal services. trump's oval office secretary during the period when cohen was being reimbursed by trump. because trump was doing all this reimbursing when he was in the white house as president, she a front row seat. and that's not even the whole potential witness list. joining me now to discuss our msnbc legal correspondent lisa rubin and kush kadori. lisa, i was interested in this potential witness list, and i'm sure you were interested and more informed in following this case and deep legal expertise. who among those names stuck out to youuc as being essential?

>> people are going to be talking when this trial gets under wayia about madeleine. that's because there were multiple checks. he didn't repay him in one lump sum. he repaid him over a series of months. six of the checks at least that were sent to michael cohen were signed by donald j. trump in his distinctive sharpy scrawl and at a time when he was president of the united states. you havede to ask yourself wher was donald trump when he signed those checks? the way they were formulated you can see they were computerized, generated frm some business. someone would have had to present him those checks to sign. that's where madeleine comes in. she was the key. if you wanted to communicate with trump, you had to go through her. so expect the prosecution potentially to show her other evidence of the scheme to conceal thef payments through these manufactured legal

invoices because if someone wanted to send him an e-mail, we know he doesn't e-mail. if someone wanted to send him a text, we know he doesn't text. >> you made a point in politico that michael cohen is more of a layman witness. >> it's not unusual for cooperators in prominent criminal cases to have sordid pasts, theird own criminal history, maybe they lied to prosecutors and they've seen thh light. and they stop lying once they start working with government and ideally are on the right path on the straight and narrow. michael cohen has a lied to eve branch of the federal government over the last few years. he lied to justice department

prosecutors when he was trying to ask them to give him a break. he had lied to congress and pleaded guilty to doing that. he lied to at least one judge, probably the judge who took his guilty plea on the tax charges back in 2018 because he's since claimed he pled guilty under duress and he didn't mean it, he didn't commit those crimes. so that's a lot of lying for someone going to be a key witness. and cohen also has a couple of other elements of unusual baggage.plts he has a career now, a media career he has constructed off the back of his connection to donald trump and frankly his vendetta against donald trump. both of those things are going to be o issues for his credibily i'm sure trump's lawyers will bring out. lisa is exactly right. the other witnesses on this list could be quite significant, and i'm sure thed d.a.'s office wi be looking to them to try to shore up cohen's testimony, corroborate it or plug in gaps. the most obvious with the

assistant lisa was talking about, she may have been around conversations in which she overhead trump talking about his knowledge of the scheme, his motive. and i don't want to speculate too far, but that's what we're seeing with this witness list, the d.a. putting some people on the board who might be able to fill in pieces of evidence that other people might not be able to do so well. >> plugging the holes, lisa. >> when he was talking about the assistant, and it reminded me in the statement of facts of the em company's indictment, there's a single paragraph that jumps out at me every time i read it, and it's the fact in 2017 cohen and trump 2 allegedly met in the ov office to cement t this repayme scheme. i have been thinking to myself for months who is going to corroborate that? if michaelgo cohen is a problematic witness as he's just postulated, we now have one possibility because there's h n one elseib on that witness list who would have been in the white

house at that time. >> i do wonder, you know, as much as it seems quite evident d.a. bragg has spent quite a bit of time to shore up potential witnesses, you point out in your piece today trump's lawyers could pursue i don't know is it novel, ano different strategy f effectively lower the sentence here by convincing -- by going only fory a misdemeanor charge here, by effectively admitting guilt to just a misdemeanor to take a felony off the table. can you explain thatof theory a bit more fully? >> it's an unorthodox theory i'm sure to people hearing it. essentially anytime there's a charged defense a high level that has a lesser included offense in. a in this case the misdemeanor

falsifying business records and escalate today the top through the allegation the falsification of the records was done to aid another crime. what defendants in these situations can efdo, if they ar concerned the jury may be reluctant to quit the defendant, they can ask the judge in new york before the case goes before the jury to instruct the jurors they can convict the defendant on the c lesser in this case misdemeanor offenses rather than top offenses. and ther benefit for doing tha with a criminalfo defendant is avoid a situation where the jurors are stuck with the strongest option. that would be the way the defendant would see it, and instead give them sort of a compromise option, which would be iomisdemeanors in this instance. >> lisa,is what do you think of the likelihood of that? and i guess secondarily how much pressure --se i think it's been frustrating and confusing to people bragg has not outlined

what the step up charge could be -- >> to be clear he's outlined three possibilities and he has not settled on any of them. it's not clear to me at trial he'll necessarily settle on any but rather present at trial the options. choose your own adventure, jury, and that's enough to convict him. >> i guess i wonder as a matter ofas strategy is that a sound o? because we're talking about a former president it's going from a misdemeanor to a felony. this is serious to say it could be one of these three things. is that a better strategy or more novel strategy or riskier strategy saying this is what he's guilty of, i this is why is a felony. >> i think it's both a novel strategy and a risky strategy, but at the same time allows for some t disagreement within the jury where youis otherwise haveo have unanimity. in other words, there doesn't nes very have to be a meeting of

the minds among these 12 jurors as to what crime donald trump was attempting to conceal or commit. it's enough they believe he engaged in the falsifying of business records with the the intent to commit or conceal a crime. so the fact they've identified three it could be, that might be all the better for them as opposed to just pinpointing one. >> you havet reporting trump's legal teame is actively considering this, right? >> yeah, they have been actively considering it. andn they have through as i mentioned -- through the close of the case to consider it. i mean the advantages are quite obvious, right? i mean it's a lesser charge. it'll bet' easier for him to so of spin as a victor at least not a loss. and it could reshape the political dynamics around at least thispo case. but it would require him to do something he'sre not particular good at doing, which is to be humble and prepare to sort of take one on the chin, right? and thisne is someone who guard hiss ego very closely and does not like to admit defeat. so that i think would be the

principal challenge. i think in an ordinary circumstance this would be the smart thing for a criminal defendant to do, which is why it's no surprise, frankly, trump'sri lawyers have been considering it. >> i'm going to make a prediction even if he goes that route he will say he's been absolved. he'll do what he usually does, which is lie. that's my prediction. goes that route. thank you both for your wisdom and expertise. coming up, the right wing's stunning incoherence as it begins to fully grasp the repercussions on its attacks on abortion rights. congresswoman pramila jayapal joins me later on that this hour. the organization isern wasting timega in spamming households across the country with lies about w fraud in the 2024 election. that's coming up right after the break. 4 election that's coming up right after the break.

what is cirkul? cirkul is

the fuel you need to take flight. cirkul is the energy that gets you to the next level. cirkul is what you hope for when life tosses lemons your way. cirkul, available at walmart and drinkcirkul.com.

is it going to be the position of the rnc in 2024 that the 2020 election was not fairly decided or that it was stolen somehow? >> well, i think we're past that. i think that's in the past. >> that was laura trump, donald trump's daughter-in-law and cochair of the republican national committee insisting as far as she's concerned the big lie about 2020 election fraud is

in the past. which makes it strange then that the rnc would send out nearly 150,000 robo calls on laura trump's behalf falsely claiming that there was massive election fraud in the 2020 election. here's the audio of that robo call obtained by cnn. >> hello, i'm stephanie calling for the national committee cochair laura trump. i'm sure you agree with cochair trump that we cannot allow. >> that certainly doesn't sound like an organization trying to leave 2020 in the past. that sounds like trump's election lies being institutionally legitimized by the republican party. house speaker mike johnson will

head to press conference at mar-a-lago with donald trump about election integrity. i do wonder as a former rnc official what it sort of makes you feel when you hear these robo calls that basically suggest the institutional stamp of approval on 2020 and 2024 are big lies. >> yeah, i mean a couple of things. i'll get to my feelings in a second. in addition to the 2020 lie, they're offering a patent lie about 2024 in a way to try to raise money and try to trick old people. i wrote about this a little bit in my book. this was exactly relevant to it, which was i was in charge of approving the mail and e-mail that would go out on behalf of

the communications department. even back then these sorts of mailers they're always -- there's always a little bit of hyperbole, there's always some exaggeration. the language is more aggressive. you're trying to get people to give money. and there were times i would try to edit it and tone it down, and the powers that be would say unless you think cnn is going to get this and embarrass this, then we're just going to go with it because it's going to raise money. i have a really big flashback to that seeing a news outlet get this and call them on their lies, which is something they deserve. the types of stuff we were doing in the obama era i look back on this and regret, but it was standard political exaggeration. this is a total fabrication about our democracy being a fraud. and we've already seen the ramifications of a lie at that scale in the storming of the

capitol. that is the part that is so enraging. >> well, and, you know, i think in retrospect we may have -- it may feel like the republican edifices institutionally crumbled in the wake of trump's big lie, but leading up to the election they certainly weren't as onboard as they apparently are now. it's not just the rnc. it's the speaker of the house who's going down to meet with trump to talk about election integrity. the same speaker of the house, tim, who was instrumental in getting house members to sign onto an amicus brief in the wake of the 2020 election that was full of lies and the intention was to disenfranchise the votes of swing states. how alarmed are you by the fact that johnson is going down to mar-a-lago and the subject of their presser tomorrow is quote-unquote election integrity? >> extremely alarming, and it's just a carbon copy of kevin mccarthy and what kevin mccarthy did after january 6th.

liz cheney writes about it in her book where there was maybe a small moment where there was some momentum for impeachment, for trying to move on from trump, and tim mccarthy totally blunted that when he went down to mar-a-lago and rick scott a few days later gave trump some award they made up at mar-a-lago. it's the same thing. these people learn nothing, and it's true for the mike johnson press conference tomorrow, but it gives the stamp of the whole party not just the rnc but the legislative wing of the party on trump's lies about 2020 again, and it continues to radicalize people. i remember in that period between november and january 6th there were two things to me really alarming. one was watching maga media like news max and far right stuff like fox and how apocalyptic they were about election fraud, and the other was getting text messages and e-mails from the rnc from these candidates and trump. and i'm reading all this stuff

going, man, if people really believe this what are they going to do? and we saw what they were going to do. there are real world ramifications to this. it's not like you're sending out a voice mail and nothing happens. words have consequences. >> yeah, and they have consequences for our democracy. i do wonder, though, as a matter of political theater it's kind of the fool me once, shame on you, full me twice, shame on me. i can understand trump may have been able to convince a section of his supporters, but they seem to be laying the groundwork as a fail safe 2024 would have been stolen too by illegal voters. why do people believe that two times in a row? do people not catch onto the absurdity at some point? >> no. why do people believe it now? why do people believe kari lake. there was no storming of the

capitol in arizona after kari lake's loss. i should down there following the aftermath of that and that was encouraging. maybe there are some signs there won't be the same level of enthusiasm for the lies, but donald trump needs to the lies because it's central to his own persona he can't be the loser. there's a symbiotic necessity to continue with this kind of phony nonsense, and that's why it continues. >> i don't know, tim, we're going to see what happens, but, man, all signs do not point in the right direction as far as robo calls and institutional sign off on this go. thank you for your time, my friend. really appreciate it. still ahead this evening the arizona supreme court's decision to reinstate a 19th century abortion ban is all about the will of the people. at least that's what donald trump is saying. conservatives everywhere are

scrambling to explain away this latest anti-democratic affront before it ruins them at the ballot box. will it work? i'll talk to congresswoman pramila jayapal about all that coming up next. jayapal about alt coming up next

my name is oluseyi and some of my favorite moments throughout my life are watching sports with my dad. now, i work at comcast as part of the team that created our ai highlights technology, which uses ai to detect the major plays in a sports game. giving millions of fans, like my dad and me, new ways of catching up on their favorite sport. 9 april, the year of our lord 2024, so i'm folty confused. what happened in arizona today? what is this? >> steve, it's really funny because just today the arizona court of appeals -- >> hold on.

hang on. hang on, hang on, hang on. arizona made a state in 1910, somewhere around there. when did arizona become a state? >> 1912. >> 1912. the territorial ban is from 1864? >> that's correct. >> hold on, hold on, hold on. what -- what happened in arizona? that question was top of mind for most americans this week including trump whisperer steve bannon. yes, that steve bannon, that guy appeared just as confused as the rest of us about the arizona supreme court's decision to uphold a civil war era abortion ban, something that conservative court was only able to do because donald trump's hand picked supreme court justices overturned the constitutional right to an abortion two years ago. nevertheless, bannon posed a

question. what's happening there? and conservatives have had a really hard time answering it. fox news thinks the democrats are really at fault here. >> and you know what, arizona's governor is a democrat. the state's attorney general is a democrat. the state legislature is almost evenly divided. if democrats, you want to get rid of the law, well, you have a chance right now to get rid of it. and i would advise you, get rid of it. >> get rid of it, democrats. democrats in arizona already tried to do that twice this year well before this week's ruling, and the republican majority shut them down. then yesterday when arizona democrats tried once more to repeal the 1864 abortion ban, who stood in their way? republicans. again. so republicans are sort of saying one thing and mostly doing another here, rendering their position on all of this largely incoherent. just yesterday donald trump

touted the end of roe v. wade but then seemingly opened the door to voter-led initiatives to enshrine abortion access in state constitutions. >> the will of the people. this is what i've been saying. it's a perfect system. so for 52 years people have wanted to end roe v. wade to get it back to the states. we did that. it was an incredible thing, an incredible achievement. we did that, and now the states have it. and the states are putting out what they want. it's the will of the people. >> we're going to talk about that now with congresswoman pramila jayapal, democrat of the state of washington and chair of the house democratic caucus. thank you for joining me. we've got a lot to talk about. do you think republicans, conservatives, can just say the phrase will of the people, will of the people and say it enough times at such a volume people forget about the actions they have actually taken to get this outcome? >> hey, alex. it's great to be with you. no, i don't think they can do

that, and i think what you're seeing is the mess, the pigsty they've gotten themselves into because here's the thing, everybody knows because donald trump bragged about it and kill continue to brag about it, that he is the one who, quote, proudly takes responsibility for ending roe. and so he has said that. he has endorsed a nationwide abortion ban. by the way, the maga republicans in the house put a nationwide abortion ban into the study conference bill that is supported by 100% of republican leadership and 80% of the republican conference. and so i think that what you have to understand here is that the reason they're doing all these machinations and trying to round around in circles to say they didn't say what they did say but maybe they kind of said what they said they didn't say is because they know they're losing on this issue. they know republicans, democrats and independents across the

country want to preserve the ability of a pregnant person to make the choice for their own bodies. 1 in 3 women of reproductive age live in states that have either banned abortion or partially and severely restricted abortion or banned abortion depending on how you want to talk about it. so they know this is deeply unpopular, and donald trump is the one who made it happen. i think they can run around and say whatever they want, but the reality is we need to keep showing that clip as exactly as you did of donald trump and other republicans saying that they were the ones that ended roe v. wade. and they are the ones who have caused this tremendous chaos and real pain for millions of women across this country who now not only don't have the right to abortion, by the way, but also the republicans are really about

eliminating all reproductive health care for women as you saw with the ivf decision. contraception is very much a part of their plan, and i think they understand what a mess they're in now because this is not popular. it is not right, and it is not popular. >> i mean it's also ironic all of a sudden the republican party which has embraced such anti-democratic actics to stay in power is now heralding how important it is to have the will of the people decide matters of great state level import like abortion, reproductive freedom. by embracing i don't know democracy it forecloses the mechanisms by which they've stayed in power, which is legislative shicannery and judicial installing conservatives on benches across the country to rule against the will of the people. and i wonder if you think that has dawned on republicans as their leaders, you know, get behind the notion of the will of

the people? >> look, they -- you're trying to be logical about this as if they should all, you know, actually do what they say and say what they do. they have no consistency at all. they flip positions on a dime, and they do it because they're a cult of donald trump. and whatever donald trump says or believes one day is what the entire republican party starts to ferret. they have no interest in democracy. if they did, they would not block the passage of the john lewis voting rights act. they would not go into states and fundamentally restrict the rights of americans to be at the polls and vote. but that is what they've done over and over again. i don't know necessarily think we should even get distracted by that because abortion is the issue. women are the issue here. and what we know is what they're doing is deeply unpopular. the chaos they've thrown the country into with the maga

supreme court, with donald trump proudly pushing and claiming responsibility for ending roe, that is really the thing that we're dealing with now. and i think that the -- we will once again show that the will of the people will be on the ballot with the arizona abortion rights amendment. you know, other states across the country that are putting this on the ballot, and i do believe it will turn out a tremendous number of people. and we will codify those laws in states. but we just have to be clear if donald trump gets back in, if republicans keep control of the house and senate, they will continue to push forward a nationwide abortion ban because that's what they've always wanted, whether they say it now or not. >> do you think this issue is the whole ball game in the 2024 election? >> i think it's a major piece of the ball game, absolutely. we are getting ready at the progressive caucus to also rollout what we call our cost

agenda. lowering costs, raising wages for americans so they don't feel the squeeze, so they feel government is on their side, deal with housing, deal with child care. these are also going to be a big part of it, but certainly abortion is going to be a major factor in the election, and republicans know that they are on the wrong side of it. thank you, donald trump, for causing all of this chaos for millions of women across this country. >> congresswoman, pramila jayapal, you have a standing invitation to come and talk on this show so let us know when you're ready. still ahead this evening new polling from "the wall street journal" shows president biden losing support from one of his core constituencies, black voters. what could be driving them to donald trump? that's ahead. iving them to donald trump that's ahead

we are a little less than seven months away from election day, and this is apparently a thing now. using art official intelligence to generate pictures of trump surrounded by black supporters i suppose manifesting the close relationship they would like trump to have with the black community. meanwhile, trump himself is trying to make in roads with black voters thin most awkward way possible like telling a room full of black conservatives in south carolina black people are embracing trump because of his mug shot. and yet despite the

transparently awful strategies here, it appears that trump's support among the black electorate may actually be growing. a poll found 11% of black voters in swing states said they're going to vote for donald trump. that is compared to 6% who said they'd vote for trump according to the ap. meanwhile 30% of black men in swing states say they'll vote for trump in the upcoming election compared to the 12% nationwide in that 2020 ap survey. remember in 2020 donald trump won just 8% of black voters overall, again, according to that same survey so the uptick in support here in crucial swing states could be meaningful in what is expected to be a tight, tight race. for that reason special black men in america road to 2024 my colleagues talk to black men about why some of them might

choose trump. take a listen. >> you know where i'm going. >> about saying that you would support trump, do you still feel that way? >> this is what i would say i learned a lot that day, but honestly it comes from frustration about things not being right in my community and wanting to try it a different way. you know what i'm saying? but what i learned i'm not a political person, i'm just boots on the ground in the city every day there's very few changes that reach down, trickle down in our community. i got a lot of flack back for that, but i did realize a lot of black people voted trump, they just don't put it out there like i did. >> we're going to talk about what a shift in black support for donald trump could portend in november with charles coleman right after this break. charlesn right after this break

i still love to surf, snowboard, and, of course, skate. so, i take qunol magnesium to support my muscle and bone health. qunol's extra strength, high absorption magnesium helps me get the full benefits of magnesium. qunol, the brand i trust. “look at all those snacks, you must be a king!” “i did just pay 60% less for my ticket with the gametime app.” “it's the best place to get last-minute deals on tickets.” “i guess i'm just a better fan than you.“ "(crowd cheering) i've got to get the gametime app.” “download the gametime app to get great deals on last-minute tickets.”

the only thing i've heard people say in a conversation when it comes to him is that at

least you know what his agenda is because he tells you. that's what it is. and, you know, like they say the devil you know is better than the one you don't. i've never voted for him, but at the same time i've heard conversations. >> that was hip hop artist jeezy earlier this year speaking candidly. his remarks about black voters openness to donald trump is a warning to democrats, one which is only bu tressed by new polling today which shows trump eating into biden support among black men and black women. joining me now is charles coleman, civil rights attorney and co-host to black men in america the road to 2024, which is currently streaming on peacock. we thought of you immediately. who can make sense of this? what appears to be an increase in black support both black men and black women, 30% of black

males in swing states interested in donald trump. what do you make of that? >> well, first of all, i think it's important we contextualize the numbers so we don't paint black men or black women as scapegoats. at the end of the day white america can and will determine the outcome of this election. i think the critical demographics of both black men and black women are going to be important for joe biden to seize upon if he wants to be re-elected because he's having trouble elsewhere. now, when you're talking about black men, there are two main reasons why the message is not landing. the first one is there is not acknowledgement or investment in saying, look, we have failed in a lot of regards and we have a lot of work to do. oftentimes the messages crafted look forward without acknowledgement of where we are and what is missing, and i think that's something most black men are having a problem connecting to. the other sort of fail i think

the biden administration is doing, the campaign at least is this notion of trying to sell the preservation of democracy. if you're a group for whom democracy has not actually worked or you do not believe democracy has protected you, then losing it without discussing what is going to be different in its preservation does not matter to you in the same way. the issue when you're looking at the numbers is it necessarily black voters going to trump, it's black voters going to decide i'm going to stay home. >> when you talk about the existential threat, the democratic project laying in tatters at the end of a second trump term or the beginning, do you think the explicit white nationalism is not enough of a motivator for the same black men you're talking about, who may be less inclined today be energized around the broader proposal around democracy? >> i think the message around white nationalism and broader message around white supremacy is something that resonates. if you're someone who's been in america and voted for the

democratic party for generations and you have not seen substantive changes take place in your community, then you don't necessarily feel the biggest difference between curbside bigotry having an uptick and systemic oppression being maintained. it all seems -- >> bad. >> bad for you, so you're not drawing that distinction. i think, again, for one of the reasons why joe biden's message is not landing as squarely as he wants it to because you're too afraid to acknowledge that. you're too afraid to speak on it and speak mainly about it to the audience that wants to hear it. they're open to listening. what are you going to do that's going to be different from me? >> i remember in my days out on the campaign trail in the 2020 election speaking, there was a massive generational divide between older black voters and younger black voters. the older black voters were like, yeah, we're not getting everything we want, we're not

getting the attention, we're not getting the policy we need and deserve, but we also are just real about the stakes here and what a trump administration would mean for us and the country on whole. >> i think the issue there is we are in many respects dealing with a boy who cried wolf situation. you think back to mitt romney, the conversation and even george bush before then, the conversation was the sky is falling and this is the most important election of our lifetime. we got through george bush from many people was perspectives whether the indexes and measurements actually support this, a position most people feel like is still disadvantageous. i think that is big part of the generational divide. >> the journal report says black women who are the bedrock, some of the most reliable voters for democrats are really interesting

third party candidates. that goes exactly to what you are saying which it's not necessarily going for trump, it may be staying home to trump's benefit in terms of percentages. did you hear tell of third party candidates? was anybody particularly interesting in communities of color? >> i think across america but particularly with the black men there is a thirst for another option. i think people are very much interested in this other option or if there could be another option even if it is not viable to win to at least send a message you need to court me, you need to pay attention to me. one of the things that has been a huge mistake in this entire dialogue is this notion of trying to shame or scare black men by the saying of, well, you're going to go support donald trump. >> you're handing the election to trump. >> right. here's the reality, whether we like it, whether we agree with it, acting as though this conversation isn't taking place,

being mad about it or being in denial about it without addressing the reasons why is going to lead to failure. so we have to come to grips whether we like it or not, whether we think it's factually based or founded in reality is not the issue. the issue is this intimate is very real to the people to turn out and you've got to figure out a way to address it. >> people who feel unseen should not be scapegoated asked the subject of indignation they need to be spoken to and considered in the conversation. always doing the essential work here, it's great to see you on set. that is our show for tonight. "way too early" with jonathan lemire is coming up next. i am very, very defendant in the legal ground that we stand on with this executive order. and, you know, if somebody wants to challenge that, go right ahead. if the 1864 ban is repealed, we're still stuck with the 2022 ban, and the bottom